Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 31;20(3):2553.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph20032553.

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Marko Jovanovic  1   2 , Igor Zivkovic  1   2 , Milos Jovanovic  1 , Ilija Bilbija  2   3 , Masa Petrovic  1   2 , Jovan Markovic  4 , Ivana Radovic  2   5 , Ana Dimitrijevic  2 , Ivan Soldatovic  6
Affiliations

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Marko Jovanovic et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

There is no definitive consensus about the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) (MI-AVR) compared to conventional AVR (C-AVR). The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative complications and total hospital costs of MI-AVR versus C-AVR overall and by the type of aortic prosthesis (biological or mechanical). Our single-center retrospective study included 324 patients over 18 years old who underwent elective isolated primary AVR with standard stented AV prosthesis at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje" between January 2019 and December 2019. Reintervention, emergencies, combined surgical interventions, and patients with sutureless valves were excluded. In both MI-AVR and C-AVR, mechanical valve implantation contributed to overall reduction of hospital costs with equal efficacy. The cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that C-AVR is cheaper and yielded a better clinical outcome with mechanical valve implantation (67.17 vs. 69.5). In biological valve implantation, MI-AVR was superior. MI-AVR patients had statistically significantly higher LVEF and a lower Euro SCORE than C-AVR patients (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively). There is a slight advantage to MI-AVR vs. C-AVR, since it costs EUR 9.44 more to address complications that may arise. Complications (mortality, early reoperation, cerebrovascular insult, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation, AV block, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, wound infection) were less frequent in the MI-AVR, making MI-AVR more economically justified than C-AVR (18% vs. 22.1%).

Keywords: aortic valve stenosis; cardiac surgical procedures; healthcare economics and organizations; heart valve prosthesis implantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Vahanian A., Alfieri O., Andreotti F., Antunes M.J., Barón-Esquivias G., Baumgartner H., Borger M.A., Carrel T.P., De Bonis M., Evangelista A., et al. The joint task force on the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2012;42:S1–S44. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs455. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Di Eusanio M., Fortuna D., Cristell D., Pugliese P., Nicolini F., Pacini D., Gabbieri D., Lamarra M. Contemporary outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement in 638 octogenarians: Insights from an Italian Regional Cardiac Surgery Registry (RERIC) Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2012;41:1247–1253. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezr204. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown J.M., O’Brien S.M., Wu C., Sikora J.A.H., Griffith B.P., Gammie J.S. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: Changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009;137:82–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arora S., Misenheimer J.A., Ramaraj R. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Comprehensive review and present status. Texas Heart Inst. J. 2017;44:29–38. doi: 10.14503/THIJ-16-5852. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zahn R., Gerckens U., Grube E., Linke A., Sievert H., Eggebrecht H., Hambrecht R., Sack S., Hauptmann K.E., Richardt G., et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: First results from a multi-centre real-world registry. Eur. Heart J. 2011;32:198–204. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq339. - DOI - PubMed

Grants and funding

The authors have not received any grant or other financial support.

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
design 1
eth 1
see 1
Story 1
twitter 2